The Sh'Raan looks very different from the Ti'Mur in "Breaking the Ice":

The undersite of the bug is flat

The impulsengines have different designs and colors

the heck is larger

the hulldetails are different(like windows,colors...)

the Sh'Raan is a lot bigger

So the Sh'Raan is no surak-class vessel,not even a subclass. It´s like airplains,f.e.boing and airbus have mostly the same design. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by84.182.221.129 (talk).

I think this needs to be looked at. The Sh'Raan looks significantly longer than the other Surak class vessels seen. At the least, I think the Sh'Raan is a subclass. It may even represent an entirely new design. --OuroborosCobra 05:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Three months on, this still needs to be looked at. --OuroborosCobratalk 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll give this another couple of days, but then I am creating a "Sh'raan type" article. --OuroborosCobratalk 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have script confirmation on this spelling? Both times Archer refers to this class by name: "Breaking the Ice" and "Silent Enemy", he it sounds unmistakably like "Suur-ock"-- emphasis on the "ock", versus "ak". I also believe the latter spelling was confirmed in the issue of Star Trek: The Magazine discussing the development and design of this class. --Alan del Beccio 11:44, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the magazine listed it as "Suurot class," with no reference to Surak intended. Though, when first hearing it onscreen, I assumed it was Surak, since Archer's pronunciation mirrored Spock's in "The Savage Curtain". But still, are we sure? --12.22.249.3 19:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the final draft script for "Breaking the Ice" (revised 8/31/01) states that the class name is spelled SUUROK. If memory serves, an earlier draft of the script did call this a "Surak class" ship, but that was changed at some point during production, for reasons I wasn't privy to. – Mike Sussman - VOY/ENT Writer-Producer 01:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that certainly answers that; thanks, Mike! :) Hmm... looks like a move to Suurok class is in order, along with many link changes. Alan, get to it! ;) --From Andoria with Love 08:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it spelled "Surak"? On the subtitles, it says that, it may be region 2 (so Brit. Eng spelling) but it doesn't make any difference here. What does it say on the subtitles on region 1 (or any other region in fact)? Dave 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone just added that the Sh'Raan can reach warp 7. Is that said in the episode with it? Can someone reference that? I'm not saying it isn't true, but I sleep better at night knowing that it came from somewhere. --OuroborosCobra 07:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, one week on, no reference, away it goes. Feel free to put it back if you know where it came from, just please say where here on the talk page. --OuroborosCobra 00:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Has Vulcan propulsion ever explicitly been referred to as warp drive? Since Cochrane is credited as the inventor, is it possible that the Vulcans were using something else, like a singularity drive? -- StAkAr Karnak 13:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, what? There certainly was warp drive before Zephram Cochrane came around. He is simply credited as being its inventor on Earth. --Alan del Beccio 14:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition, while Romulans have been said to use an artificial quantum singularity as a power source, it is still powering a warp drive, not some other form of propulsion. Just a different power source, like using ethanol instead of gasoline. --OuroborosCobratalk 14:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So kiddies, the Sh'Raan and Suurok are the same ship after all. I have recently been corresponding with one of the special effects supervisors on the series, and among my questions to him were with regards to this specific question:

"I also wondered if you know in particular why there was a prolonged absence of the Suurok class which originally appeared in "Breaking the Ice" before the model was modified for "Fallen Hero"? I guess my angle here is with regards to the modified design, and what you might know about what happened there-why it replaced the original?"

And the response:

"The Vulcan ship, well, it fell out of favor for a while, don't remember exactly why. Our model builder, Pierre rebuilt it with better detail and texturing as well as modified dimensions. The original model was just not up to snuff for what we needed. So it was superseded. They are theoretically the same ship, not two different classes or types."

So regardless of the visual differences, it is still intended to be the same ship class, and as such we should recognize it as such, just as we do with other variations in starships classes who have just as obvious differences. In short, it keeps things condensed and concise. Obviously as a result of the merge, the background would be rewritten as needed, but as it stands: "Overall, it is unclear if this ship was intended to be a Suurok-class, sub-class or none of the above, as no official explanation has been given to explain this variation" no longer applies. --Alan 15:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate upon my masterfully brilliant use of a quote from the TNG episode "Where Silence Has Lease", I concur that this page should now be merged with Suurok class since they were obviously supposed to be one and the same. We're always looking for filmmakers' intent on MA, well, in this case, we have it. So, make it so, energize, engage, and all that jazz. --From Andoria with Love 15:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, Bernd Scheiders EAS listet both ships as two seperate classes now.
From his page:
"Isn't the Sh'Ran simply a more detailed version of the Surak, with perhaps a few detail changes, but essentially the same ship class? 3D artist Rob Bonchune on the issue: "The original model was just not up to snuff for what we needed. So it was superseded. They are theoretically the same ship, not two different classes or types." However, the many obvious changes to the model are a clear sign that it is indeed a distinct class, and the smaller windows insinuate a larger size. Aside from the visual differences the two ship types also have different roles and different top speeds. Doug Drexler: "I like to think that they are two different classes."http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/vulcan_ships.htm#starships
From the much more greater windows of the Surook there have to be a size difference of at least a few hundret meters between the two ships

So there is no point for the two shiptypes/classes to be merged in the same article. Given the completely different designs and lenght of both of them.
01:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No comment on this matter? If not, I would like to split this into two seperate articles then.--87.163.216.183 19:03, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

WTF is this? First of all, man up and register if your going to start messing with things of this calibur. Second, just because have contradictory information that comes across much more speculatory ("I think therefore it must be") than the original ("this is what happened at the time") comment, does not justify making a mess out of things. This deserved more attention and more support than you've given it (just as it did the first time around). --Alan 16:10, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused here, where is the general problem? Sure, the two designs are similar, but the size, hull pattern, color, etc... are entirely different. It's plausible to use a similar design along this lines, but have an entirely new class. --Terran Officer 16:33, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I'm also somewhat confused. The user waited about a month for comment (August 9th to September 8th) before stating they were going to change it, and waited until just now to actually do it. I would certainly take that to mean acceptance of the idea. It is certainly valid to criticize something at any time, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the user was unreasonable either. I also think it was unneccesary to toss around s-bombs for someone who was seemingly acting in good faith.

As to the actual issue, there are other examples of different classes looking alike (Miranda and Soyuz come to mind) so what is the problem with thinking these two might be different?--31dot 16:52, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Well, first. I want to appollogize, if made a mistake here. I am not registered because I am not a native english speaker and my english is somewhat stuttering. Therefore I would not consider to do big changes here like this one (this case is special, because it annoys me a little too much). You are correct, it deserved more attention than I could given with my english knowings, but I wanted to make a start at least, so that someone better suited as me could correct. I have added alle the new information from Drexler here on this discussion page in august, saying the two ship models are two different classes (two linked statements. One as clear as day: On the question "Hmmm... so do the FX guys consider the Sh'ran type and the Suurok type to be different ships?", Drexler answered "yes"). One month later, a asked again if anyone have something against a split. No one answered.

The background information is not so contradictory as it seem, because Drexler is the creator of the Suurok class. Bonchune on the other hand has nothing to do with either the Suurok- or the Sh'Raan-model (the Sh'Raan is a design of Pierre Drollet, the Suurok a design of Doug Drexler).

I added this information in the background section too. We have the detailed CGIs of both ships, they look completely different and have propably a completely different size (just compare the windows). That said, Alan, I have a few questions:1. What should I have done instead? 2. What exactly justified a merge of both designs any longer? 87.163.241.237 17:18, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the Soyuz/Miranda is a bad example because they were identified on screen as two different designs; this isn't the case here. Secondly, this is the same case as what happened with the Jem'Hadar battle cruiser, same design different interpretations -- or for that matter, to a much lesser degree, the Melbourne. At this point it is one person's speculation ("I like to think that they are two different classes.") vs. another person's explanation for why something is the way it is ("The original model was just not up to snuff..."). Finally, if something is ignored, especially when it was previously discussed and supported, then it really doesn't make a whole lot fo sense that it should be assumed to be approved. --Alan 12:55, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

You can identify the Suurok and the Sh'Raan as two different designs on screen just by watching them.^^ And there are far more arguments than just Drexlers one statement (of two! The second, but ignored is in no way speculativ formulated.). By the way Bonchunes statement instead is somewhat speculative formulated. He said "theoretically", in the meaning of it wasn't meant as two ships at first because there was a need of a replacement for the low-poly Suurok-model (not in the meaning of "the two designs couldn't be two different ship classes in the canon universe at all", I think)

Summarized: For the "it's the same class"-oppinion there is just one argument: Bonchunes statement. For the other side we have planty more: statements from Drexler, the actuall very different ship-model (shape, hull pattern, size), the role of both ships differs drastically (the Ti'Mur is a science vessel, the Sh'Raan one of Vulcans toughest battle cruisers (they have different top speeds as well). "discussed and supportet", yes, from two users (yourself and from Andoria with Love). No insult here, but there are new facts (Drexlers statements) and old facts (wich weren't even considered in the discussion/decision) 87.163.231.5 19:36, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

To Alan- if you think so. Personally I think if people aren't commenting on something, then that means either 1)they don't care about it enough to oppose it or 2) they like it and simply don't want to post just an "I like it". Either way, there is a tacit acceptance. As for previous discussions, nothing is every truly closed, and there was plenty of time for those who opposed it to comment.--31dot 22:29, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Bonchune flat out said this is why it was done this way, period. There is no speculation in that statement, in so much as the rest of his comment, which is technically true in as far as the previously established fact, or the speculation of Drexler's comment. Secondly, 31dot, talk pages are easily overlooked, hell, I'm a perfect example...didn't see this discussion until everything got all mix matched and moved around. That's what makes support important in such discussions, especially proposals by n00bs or IPs who can't bother to register or log in and attempt to be a part of the community. --Alan 14:06, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

"especially proposals by n00bs or IPs who can't bother to register". Couldn't care less to be part of a community, where beings whith this attidude are in moderation. I don't see you dicussing here, just bitching about me not registering. If MA don't like edits from non-registered users make it a registered-only wiki... 87.163.203.133 21:37, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think his intention was to have an attitude, but even though we disagree on this issue he is correct that major changes like this one we are discussing should be discussed by the community as a whole, and while we value the contributions of new members we also think that if they want to make major changes they should become part of the community.--31dot 22:54, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

I stated my point, and still see more speculation than anything from the new evidence than pure facts, which are present in the original evidence. While the visual evidence is obviously apparent, one should still balk at the idea of using the standard MA grade "made up name" when a) the new evidence does not conclusively nullify the original evidence, and b) there are numerous examples of model variations both explained (and extremely blatant), like the Constitution-class, and less obvious aesthetic redesigns, like that of the Dominion battle cruiser or Nebula-class. --Alan 01:26, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this on-and-off since the move, and I feel Alan made a valid point here, in that this could simple be a refit. Since there doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting a different name, simple calling the new model a refit seems to be the best choice IMO. - Archduk3:talk 03:25, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

That there, is what the problem is coming from, IMO, is that it could be as such. Yes, I agree, it's very possible that the class, or a ship (or two, or three...) underwent an extensive refit, after all, that was seen with the Constitution-class, and the Klingon Empire used the same design for centuries (apparently...), but what was the actual intent compared to what was seen within the episodes? Intent and the final product are totally different things (I'm sure Mike Sussman could attribute to that, I've seen many of his answers refer to what was intended, and what actually happened). Visually, it is pointed out there are vast differences, it isn't just upgrading the engines, or a new hull to whats already there (Like with the aforementioned Constitution). This in short, goes beyond a 'variant' intent where a pod here or there might be different, we have a clear difference in size (a vast difference there from statements, it seems, the hull 'texture' and color. Different types (Combat Cruiser, science vessel) and speeds have also been mentioned, the speeds is easily explainable, sure, but then there's the rest. Whatever though, whatever the community wants to do, I'll support but it is from my opinion, in watching the episodes that the designs were of different classes. (Not that opinion really matters, I know, but it's what I read from the episode appearences) --Terran Officer 02:58, November 19, 2009 (UTC)